On Truth Social, President Trump’s 2 posts have drawn a new line for Washington’s Iran policy. He not only boasted the success of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities but also introduced a bold slogan: “Make Iran Great Again” (MIGA). This extends the branding of “Make America Great Again” into a value judgment on Iran’s domestic affairs. This move represents not only an information war but also a strategic linguistic act aimed at shaping public opinion and policy direction.
In his first post, Trump stated that the term “regime change” is politically incorrect. He then pivoted by asking, “Why shouldn’t there be a regime change if Iran’s current leadership cannot make the country great again?” This directly hints at the potential overthrow of Tehran’s government. Trump’s rhetorical strategy of initial denial followed by affirmation positions the issue of regime change in a delicate balance between political feasibility and moral legitimacy. In other words, while he avoids explicitly calling for the overthrow of Iran’s government, he implies that an ineffective regime forfeits its right to exist.
Even more provocative is his second post, which declares that “all Iranian nuclear facilities have suffered devastating destruction, as confirmed by satellite imagery.” The phrase “utterly destroyed” could not be more precise! Satellite imagery reveals white structures buried deep within rock formations, with even their rooftops below ground level, completely shielded from flames. The most severe damage occurred deep underground. “A direct hit, right on target!” This is not mere military bravado, but a narrative pivot that leverages military success to frame the U.S. as capable of decisively resolving the Iran issue, thereby securing narrative dominance for future escalations.
Meanwhile, Vice President Vance and Defense Secretary Hegseth have sought to downplay regime-change implications, asserting that the operation targeted Iran’s nuclear program rather than its government. However, the divergence from Trump’s rhetoric raises questions about the true strategic intent of U.S. policy toward Iran. This discrepancy exposes internal contradictions in America’s approach.
MAGA emphasizes rebuilding America’s glory, while MIGA extends this “strongman-revival-order” narrative to Iran’s domestic affairs. The aim is to convince Trump’s supporters that the U.S. is not only a military hegemon but also a force for restoring global order. However, the likelihood of Iran’s regime collapsing in the short term remains low. Iran lacks a unified nationwide anti-regime movement, and many opposition groups are skeptical or outright opposed to external military intervention. Even among citizens dissatisfied with the government, foreign attacks often trigger a “national unity” effect, a phenomenon frequently observed in other Middle Eastern conflicts.
Whether Trump genuinely intends to launch a full-scale war to overthrow Iran’s regime remains uncertain. Historically, Trump has favored swift, dramatic, and low-risk military operations, making him unlikely to engage in a protracted, unpredictable conflict. More noteworthy is the possibility that he might escalate sanctions or covertly support opposition groups, using gray-zone tactics to achieve regime change without the political costs of war.
In summary, “MIGA” and “regime change” in Trump’s rhetoric serve as both a threat and an allure, functioning as strategic goals while providing a shield for plausible deniability. In an era where language intertwines with reality, each of Trump’s Truth Social posts paves the way for “what comes next,” signaling that U.S.-Iran relations may be entering a new, uncertain era defined by “MIGA.”
Author: Ming-Hui Liao, Assistant Researcher, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic
Research Source: China Times, June 24, 2025